Appeal No. 2000-1954
Application No. 08/593,459
Appellants also argue to the effect that in Hauenstein there
is no determination whether the voltage level at terminal 1 is
equal to or larger than a threshold, only when the voltage falls
below a certain level. We are of the opinion that in determining
that the voltage level is below a threshold, Hauenstein
determines whether the voltage level is equal to or larger than
the threshold. The claim language is simply too broad to
distinguish over Hauenstein.
An argument is made to the effect that controller S of
Hauenstein does not control switching device T to switch on and
off in different manners so that the charging of the load is
performed in different manners. We disagree. The charging of
the load CL in the reference is performed in different manners in
the sense that charging time is variable, depending on the charge
on CL when charging is initiated (column 3, lines 50-54). The
charging of the load CL occurs based on a determination by
controller S that the voltage at terminal 1 has fallen below a
threshold. This would occur as when an operator depresses the
button on a flash camera, resulting in discharge of CL
to create the camera flash and the consequent, automatic
beginning of a new ton-toff period to recharge CL. Whereas a camera
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007